Anti-vaccination propaganda is filled with fear and hatred of masculinity (in addition to many lies). Women are comparing vaccinations to rape (including the non-existent college rape “epidemic”) with images such as these:

I have been thinking this morning about the parallels between vaccine-injury and sexual assault. I happened to hear a news story today about the incidence of rape on college campuses, and as I was listening, I could envision several commonalities.

In the story, a young woman was interviewed about her experience. She described a situation in which she had accompanied a young man to his dorm room and they had engaged in sex – both agreed and it was an interaction to which both gave informed consent. They both knew they were going to have sex before entering the dorm room and there was no force or coercion involved. There was an element of trust and equality in the decision-making process.

She said that afterward, she was ready to leave and when she got up to get dressed, the young man pushed her down onto the bed, and held her down while he turned up the stereo so her cries for help could not be overheard by neighboring students.

After the assault, the young woman reported the rape to campus police. The investigation was dropped and the rapist was not prosecuted. She sees him on campus and has classes with him, which she reported is extremely difficult and re-traumatizing for her.

Vaccination of our children is in many ways similar to medical rape.

We know the person who has harmed our infants and children. We trust them. We willingly go into the environment and we even participate in holding down the victims. In many cases, we have been in those rooms and participated willingly, albeit without truly informed consent, in the medical assault on our children (or on ourselves.)

In other cases, we entered those rooms with people we trusted, believing we were NOT going to engage in the act proposed by the perpetrator, only to be talked into it, shamed into it, threatened into it, coerced into it, or tricked into it with promises that, “This won’t hurt” or “It’s only going to hurt for a second” or “Come on… you know it’s the right thing to do… everyone else is doing it….”

Afterward, the perpetrators, pat us on the thigh or shoulder while looking us straight in the eyes and saying, “There now. That wasn’t so bad, was it?” They straighten their white coats, instruct us to get our things together, as they turn their backs and stride out of the room in search of their next victim. We may be left feeling afraid, and numb, not knowing how that happened and praying that it’s over. Praying they won’t come back and do it again, and praying there won’t be any lasting harm from what just happened.

In many cases, as we leave those rooms, feeling sick to our stomachs… dirty… with lumps in our throats and tears in our eyes, we force ourselves to take deep breaths and resolve to be stronger next time; more prepared to say NO and mean it.

For many of us, we ARE more prepared and we ARE able to say NO the next time. Others of us are not so strong.

Some of us resolve to change our lives and we seek new relationships, which are good for us and in which our decisions and our choices – our right to say NO is respected.

Some of us endure the worst when we realize that the medical assault inherent in the act of coerced vaccination is only the beginning, as our children or ourselves become sick, often within minutes or hours following the assault. It is at that point that we are suddenly faced with the horror that when we reach out to those who are supposed to help us, we must again confront the assailant and beg for assistance. Not only is the help denied, the assault is also denied and the harm minimized. We are told, “It’s nothing,” “You’re over-reacting,” – no different from the rapist’s claim, “It was consentual. After-all, you came here asking for it. What did you expect?” If there is ANY admission that what happened was harmful, the victim is blamed for the damage because “Everyone else does just fine. In fact, they keep coming back for more. They love it. It’s only those extremely rare individuals who are weak, or flawed, or physically or emotionally damaged to start with who don’t like it. The problem is not with the perpetrator, and certainly not with the act itself… it’s the victim. Something is wrong with that one…”

And just like the rape-victim in this morning’s radio story, we are continually re-traumatized when we encounter the rapist in public – in our churches, in the grocery store, at PTA meetings and community gatherings.

The medical rapist is empowered by laws that protect him (or her) from liability. There are no consequences when they harm us or our children and this has emboldened them to become even more callous in their actions.

I suppose the comparison to the non-existent campus rape “epidemic” is accurate. Both anti-vaccination and the campus rape “epidemic” are lies. They are also both led by women who want the end of due process. The woman who wrote the above propaganda specifically complained about the police and the criminal justice system not providing a summary judgement against a supposed “rapist” so it is clear that she is against due process.

I love and respect science which I worked in for a decade. But, believing in science doesn’t mean I have to ignore non-science. Science can’t explain why acupuncture works but it does. Science says vitamin E doesn’t reduce pre-menstural breast tenderness but I have 20 years of experience that says otherwise. That’s fine. If the science isn’t there then the medical profession should steer clear but we – individual people – don’t have to steer clear. It is the same with vaccines.

Like the story of a mother whose daughter got a vaccine on Friday and by monday morning had pulled all of her hair out. She is a statistical anomaly and therefore her mother is just being hysterical. That’s misogyny. We have no respect for motherhood, mothers, or the choices women make for their families.

I have trouble believing that this woman ever worked in science unless “correlation does not equal causation” is now considered misogynist. (There are probably plenty of women and maginas who think that way.) As for not respecting “motherhood, mothers, or women’s choices”, women’s “choices” are endangering their own children and other people. (And that doesn’t even address that fact that she thinks that fathers should have no say it what happens to their children.) For example, this woman who refusal to vaccinate her children caused all seven of them to get whooping cough, but this woman only endangered her own children. What is worse is that these women who are refusing to vaccinate and endangering other people’s children and people who can not get vaccinations due to legitimate medical reasons. People in the latter group are protected against various diseases by the rest of us being vaccinated (a.k.a. herd immunity). When a woman refuses to vaccinate her children and someone else is injured or killed by that act, she could face civil or criminal liability because her intentional disregard for her own children’s health is injuring other people.

When you look at all of this together, it is clear that being anti-vaccination is anti-male. In particular, the biggest victims of the anti-vaccination movement (besides those who have died as a result of women refusing to vaccinate their children) are boys who are being raised by anti-male feminist mothers.

This has been a point I’ve been trying t tackle in my life for a while now, and I’m hoping this sub can help out. I’d like to add a trigger warning for topics of sexual assault.
Often when I’m discussing social topics with people who don’t tend to agree with me the conversation will hit a point where the other person will present some fact that will go against what I have just said, but doesn’t necessarily counter the point I’m trying to argue. So often they just drop supposed “facts” as if that makes the matter ok. I’ll try to present some examples that will clarify what I mean.

Whenever I’m trying to discuss or spread awareness of sexual assault on campuses, it seems that someone will always come along and deny that it’s a problem. He will throw out articles claiming that the 1 in 5 stat is wrong or misleading, and that there really isn’t that much of a problem (as if we could know that for certain). My issue is that even if all these things are true, it doesn’t stop the underlying issue of women feeling unsafe at colleges. It only makes the issue worse if so many women are being given the impression that their potential rape is not a concern because it is statistically insignificant. The feelings are being dismissed by the “reality” of the situation and I can’t make myself see what that should be the case. Does empathy count for nothing in today’s world?

Speaking of feeling safe, I find these kinds of people are also dismissive of safe spaces for people of color or other minorities in university. I want to make the same assertion here; If people feel safer in these situations, why is it alright to ridicule them or try and take those spaces away? It isn’t harming anyone, and it’s making people feel better, which is helpful for their well being.

Another example is on International Womens Day a friend on Facebook made a post about how there is still a lot of work that needs to be done for women in todays society. The post mentioned that women still feel afraid to walk outside alone at night. Someone responded by saying that women are statistically much less likely to be assaulted at night than men.

What help is a comment like that? If I’m afraid to be out at night, and I have a 0% chance of being assaulted or raped, and I’m afraid of being out on a night where there is a 50% chance of those things happening and in that instance they don’t, my panicked walk home is the same miserable experience.

Now, I hope I have presented examples that have a clear connection. I’m obviously not arguing that there is no harm in a situation where someone feels like they will be ok if they put their hand on a heated stove element or something like that. I think it’s more for situations where and individuals perception is their reality. What benefit is there is trying to dismiss that by saying that “actual reality” isn’t how they see it? It’s like if someone said “I’m scared of the dark” and someone else said “Why? The dark can’t hurt you”. Even if the dark can’t hurt someone, you’re just disregarding their pain instead of, I don’t know, turing on the lights or something helpful and trivial.

I’m having such a hard time seeing the other side of this. Please change my view!

tl;dr feelings inform our reality, so “feels” are more important than a facts for situations that concern individuals.

I added the bold to some parts of this. This is an excellent examples of how women think that their feelings are correct when their feelings are practically the opposite of what actually happens in reality. This woman will defend against that being pointed out, by saying that “her feelings are about making a larger point”. Since she has the facts wrong in the first place, her “larger points” and feelings are also wrong by definition. Take when she said, “women are being given the impression that their potential rape is not a concern because it is statistically insignificant”. If something happening is statistically insignificant, then it is a waste of time to be concerned about it. It is like saying, people in Canada should all learn how to defend themselves against being trampled by an elephant even though the chance of that happening to anyone in Canada is effectively zero.

One thing that comes up on places like the KotakuInAction reddit is that if feminists keep saying that the video game and tech industries are hostile to women, women will avoid them. That makes sense because why would anyone go to a place that they believed was hostile to them if they had a choice. Feminists keep saying that they want “diversity” in tech and video games, yet lying about nonexistent hostility to women gets the opposite of what they want. Therefore, feminists must want something else.

What do feminists want from the tech industry? This article illuminates what feminists really want. First, take a look at this paragraph from the article:

Trying to force women back into a toxic environment isn’t going to work if the dynamics of the industry remain the same. And women are smart for leaving- because they aren’t giving up, they are moving to other industries that treat them better.

The author says that women should leave tech because it’s hostile to them. Now, take a look at another part of the article:

It is time for the next wave, and it has to be focused on men. We need gender diversity workshops, sensitivity training, sexual harassment workshops for CEOs, VCs and Angels.

Conference and panel organizers who “can’t find” diverse panel members should be fired. Point blank.

VC’s who “can’t find” women entrepreneurs are not good at deal flow and their investors should pull out. Point Blank.

So if women are correctly avoiding tech because of its alleged hostility to women, then how are conference organizers supposed to find women for conferences, and how are venture capitalists supposed to find women entrepreneurs? You can’t have women choosing to avoid an industry and have that industry be able successfully find women. It’s logically impossible.

The author’s demand when the tech industry can’t satisfy her contradiction is that men get fired. “Point blank”, as she says. That is what the women in tech movement is all about. It’s not about ending hostility towards women in the tech industry because even they know it doesn’t exist. It is about getting men fired, so that they can take the jobs of the fired men. Of course, that strategy won’t work since getting large numbers of men fired from the tech industry will cause the businesses they employed at to collapse. There will not be any jobs for men or women since they will be gone. I suspect that feminists won’t be bothered by that since they got to stick it to men they find nerdy and unattractive.

We already have a preview of what life will be like at GitHub with Ehmke employed. Someone put an issue into ContibutorCovenant repository requesting that Ehmke end her association with Shanley Kane, the March 2015 Entitlement Princess of the Month, for her misandrist tweets. This should remind you of #OpalGate since the same reasoning is being used here. However, there is an important difference. With #OpalGate, discussion of the issue was allowed. Ehmke didn’t do that. She just immediately censored any discussion of the issue. Based on this, we can assume that GitHub will become a virtual police state and will start bleeding employees who want to escape the insanity. It is guaranteed that there will several class action lawsuits against GitHub by employees that become the victims of Ehmke. I don’t know when GitHub will shut down, but it is likely to be quick and sudden.

There is one good thing about this. It shows the power and necessity of distributed systems. Since git, the software behind GitHub is distributed, there are local copies of a user’s repositories on their computers. Even if GitHub shuts down all of a sudden, the repositories are saved and can still be moved to a new git server. Ehmke can destroy GitHub, but she can’t destroy the software created with it.

The plaintiffs say that UT’s administrative hearing process, which is utilized by public universities across the state, is unfair because it provides students accused of sexual assault the right to attorneys and to confront their accusers through cross-examination and an evidentiary hearing in front of an administrative law judge.

The University of Tennessee shouldn’t even be doing what they’re doing now. Dealing with alleged crimes is the job of the criminal justice system, but at least in Tennessee, they realize that due process doesn’t end when a person steps on to a college campus.

I don’t know what the result of this lawsuit will be, but the existence of this lawsuit proves that feminists are trying to take a big dump on the Constitution. No matter what happens, more people will be woken up to the fact that many women have no problem with totalitarianism and that feminism is totalitarianism. If this lawsuit is successful, I imagine the next lawsuit of this nature will be a bunch of women suing a university for not providing immediate summary executions of men they find ugly.

There was this study done called “Gender Bias In Open Source: Pull Request Acceptance Of Women Vs. Men“. This study did not show any bias in open source software. The study analyzed the rate of acceptance from what an automated program thought were male and female contributors to open source projects on GitHub. It also separated the contributors between “insiders” (people who have contributed to a particular open source project on GitHub before) and “outsiders” (people who have not contributed to a particular open source project on GitHub before). The closest thing to bias against women the study could find was that male “outsiders” had a rate of acceptance of 64% whereas female “outsiders” had an acceptance rate of 63%. That’s just statistical noise. One thing in the study that isn’t getting talked about much is that female “insiders” have a higher acceptance rate than male “insiders”. If you’re interested in all the details, Scott Alexander has a breakdown of it (including the other problems in the study). It is also worth pointing out that this was an undergraduate study that was not peer reviewed.

Obviously, this study failed to show any bias against women in open source software. However, that didn’t stop various media outlets from saying that men in tech are supervillians bent on oppressing women. Here are some examples:

That last link even says, “a vile male hive mind is running an assault mission against women in tech“. Then, immediately afterwards, the article brings up #GamerGate and includes the standard litany of lies against #GamerGate. Obviously, there is no such thing as “a vile male hive mind”, but this is the type of propaganda that is being used against men working in tech. It is not an exaggeration to compare this to anti-semetic propaganda because pretty much all anti-semetic propaganda describes all Jews being part of “a vile Jewish hive mind”. In fact, I’m certain if you searched enough anti-semetic literature, you would find that exact phrase. The phrase even belongs on the MenKampf reddit due to its similarity with anti-semetic propaganda.

As a nerdy straight white male programmer, that fact that people like me are constantly being propagandized against by the media is getting pretty wearisome. Add in the apparent surge of support for socialism among the young and it’s getting downright frightening.

If I was an American I’d be thinking about buying a gun and at least having a backup plan in mind to escape the revolution, as paranoid as that might sound.

This sounds like good advice especially if you’re a man working in tech in San Francisco.

This lawsuit is a public announcement for men to avoid working at Yahoo if Yahoo is hiring. It also gives Yahoo’s male employees more motivation to find a new job (if they weren’t aware already that Yahoo is a misandrist hell hole on the verge of collapse.) Yahoo won’t be able to replace the men who are leaving or laid off with women who are equally as productive as the men. It’s time to start a death watch for Yahoo. The only reason that Yahoo has survived this long was that it made an investment in Alibaba several years ago. If Yahoo hadn’t did that, Yahoo would have already shut down.

The San Bernardino shooting proves that both parts of that belief is a myth. First, most of the victims were male (as with other alleged “anti-woman” shootings like the Isla Vista shooting). Second, while Syed Farook was a shooter, so was his wife, Tashfeen Malik. Additionally, it was Malik who radicalized Farook and not the other way around. She was the primary mover behind the San Bernardino shooing, and she manipulated her husband into participating in the shooting. Had it not been for her, Farook would have never killed or attacked anyone.

While the belief that men can’t be victims is bad enough, the belief that women can’t be perpetrators is particularly dangerous. This gives terrorist groups like ISIS the perfect way to organize terrorist attacks with lesser scrutiny if women are believed to be incapable of being perpetrators. This isn’t a hypothetical idea that I created. Anti-terrorism experts are worried about this. Also, it was recently discovered that there is a secret cell of Muslim women in the UK encouraging other people to join ISIS so women manipulating men into terrorist acts is likely. Since this flies in the face of blaming “patriarchy” or MRAs, MGTOW & 4Chan for everything bad that happens in the world, don’t expect to hear about it much until it can no longer be ignored.

Shevinsky is now sorry for whatever role she played in creating all of this outrage and silliness. She’s sorry, she writes in her new book, Lean Out, and she adds that her initial position was “flawed.”

“I’m glad to come out in ‘Lean Out’ and say that my original essay — the one that has been the foundation for people assuming that I am [a social justice warrior] — was deeply flawed,” Shevinsky told the Washington Examiner. “I do see sexism and gender issues, a culture war, in Silicon Valley, but the knee-jerk responses (recruit more women! attack the men!) are not the answer.”

Shevinsky still thinks that the tech industry is full of misogynist neckbeards, otherwise she wouldn’t have said that there is “sexism and gender issues, a culture war, in Silicon Valley”. She is a SJW for believing that. What happened is that Shevinsky realized that the current feminist attack on men working in the tech industry was not working. (She is also using this as an excuse to generate publicity for her book.)

Tech seems worse, for some reason. It may have to do with the subjectivity that goes into who gets funded and promoted. It may have to do with the collaborative nature of the work (so there is a lot of interaction between people) Also since there are so few women, the women who are in tech get hit on like all the time. And that’s kinda awk for everyone.

Men working in tech hitting on women is sexism? As we know from incidents like the Scott Aaronson affair, a lot of men working in tech will choose to never hit on women. Shevinsky will probably accuse those men of sexism too. Regardless of that any woman who thinks that men hitting on women is sexism because they work in tech clearly can’t be sorry about helping to start a war on men working in the tech industry.

The current War on Women pales in comparison to the potential impact that ectogenesis, a technology in which a human fetus gestates completely out of a mother’s body, will have.

The war on women is a myth, but this means that anyone is who paranoid enough to believe in the nonexistent war on women will be deathly afraid of artificial wombs.

What does it mean to sever human “birth” from the human body? This connection, between women and babies, is one of the sole sources of power that women have in some societies.

That isn’t true, but most of women’s power is derived directly or indirectly from childbirth. From this and the rest of the article, it’s clear that the author realizes that with other options for children, plenty of men will forgo dealing with women which destroys women’s power.

Ann Oakley’s book The Captured Womb: A History of the Medical Care of Pregnant Women illustrates how ectogenesis would be part of a long-standing process by which virtually all male and often misogynistic medical cultures have taken control of birth and women’s wombs in the name of science. In this framework, ectogenesis will potentially exaggerate preexisting inequities and biases. In this equation women aren’t liberated, they are further subjugated and alienated from their own bodies and abilities. This Handmaiden’s Talescenario is fairly believable if you pay any attention to, for example, Rick Santorum’s antediluvian reproductive rights agenda and the number of people willing to vote for him.

Prominent feminists and activists, including Andrea Dworkin and Janice Raymond, have concluded that not only will women be further marginalized and oppressed by this eventuality, but they will become obsolete.

“Misogynistic medical cultures” produced things like the use of forceps in childbirth which saved many women’s lives. This tells us that what women are afraid of with artificial wombs is bigger than just artificial wombs themselves. What women are afraid of is the use of any technology in childbirth, even if they would otherwise die without it. What science and modern medicine has done is not just made childbirth safer for women, but it has also demystified it. That demystification has lessened women’s power even when it has benefited them.

Then it gets silly. The author starts arguing that Tradcons are going to merge with Transhumanists to create some sort of misogynist tradcon cyborg that uses artificial wombs to oppress women. It’s guaranteed that tradcons will oppose artificial wombs, and one of the reasons they will is because they’re white knights for women. What this really shows is that for feminists all opposition looks like a tradcon even when that doesn’t make sense.

Fertility, and the ability to be the species’ reproductive engine, are virtually the only resources that women collectively control, they argue. And, although women do have other “value” in a patriarchal society–child rearing, for example–gestation remains, worldwide, the most important. Even in the most female-denigrating cultures women are prized, if only, for their childbearing. If you take that away, then what? This technology becomes another form of violence.

Perhaps women will no longer be able to hide behind childbirth and child rearing and do real work for a change. Of course, to the author, this is “violence against women”.

Other feminist analyses takes into account the class and race implications of the enthusiastic adoption of assisted reproductive technologies by the wealthy. Some, eco-feminists, relate the eventuality to correlating a general campaign against nature. Ectogenesis also opens up the real possibility of men becoming mothers and primary care takers.

This is an admission of the author’s (and other women’s) real fear of artificial wombs. Men will have children on their own, realize that they can raise them on their own, and no longer need women to help them raise children. Then women have to contribute by doing other work which scares the crap out of them. This is what the author’s (and other women’s opposition) to artificial wombs (absent a “social justice framework” as she says later in the article which means control by women) is really all about.

Let’s say there is a mangina out there in Silicon Valley who panders to women and wants to “help” them. For his attempts at helping, he gets viciously attacked by feminists. Despite the attacks, he does not have the presence of mind to realize that being a mangina was a big mistake. The mangina in question is Vivek Wadhwa, the Indian-American venture capitalist and academic.

Anti-#GamerGate has already made three major mistakes. All three of these mistakes had one thing in common. They pushed people who didn’t care about #GamerGate firmly into the #GamerGate camp. Anti-#GamerGate is in the process of making its fourth and fifth major mistakes which will have the same effect.

The fourth major mistake Anti-#GamerGate is making is flooding somewhat related websites with anti-#GamerGate and feminist women in tech propaganda. Slashdot, a website for technology news, is a good example. A while back Slashdot started posting a lot of anti-#GamerGate and feminist women in tech nonsense. Initially, the attitude of the readership at Slashdot agreed with the anti-#GamerGate and feminist position. However, the constant drumbeat of anti-#GamerGate and women in tech propaganda had the effect of reversing the views of the Slashdot readership as can be seen with the comments to Slashdot stories like this one. When anti-#GamerGate talks about #GamerGate or feminist women in tech nonsense, the effect is to generate more #GamerGate supporters.

Anti-#GamerGate’s fifth major mistake is going after archive sites using false DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) complaints. While this will piss off the owners and backers of archive sites, what anti-#GamerGate is doing is much bigger than that. The DMCA is something that the online rights crowd has been fighting since among other things it allows for this sort of abuse. Most of the online rights crowd either doesn’t care about #GamerGate or believes the feminist lie that it’s all about misogyny. This will cause many of them to get an education and become #GamerGate supporters. It also adds a new angle to the Zoe Quinn situation because she has been using false DMCA complaints to shutdown criticism of her making it that much harder for her supporters to use the lie that Zoe Quinn is a victim of misogynerds.

What is happening with both of these major mistakes is that anti-#GamerGate and feminists are pushing into adjacent communities who either were neutral or supported them and turning many members of those communities hostile to them. They should stop doing this since the effect is the same each time they do it, but they can’t seem to help themselves.

One thing the attack on Charlie Hebdo has done is given us evidence on how feminists view men like Elliot Rodger compared to the Charlie Hebdo attackers. Both Elliot Rodger and the Charlie Hebdo attackers murdered several people. However, the feminist reaction to Elliot Rodger and Charlie Hebdo has been quite different.

This is in complete contrast to the Charlie Hebdo attackers. They were not mentally ill and were working with Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Objectively, this makes the Charlie Hebdo attackers much worse than Elliot Rodger. As long as AQAP is still around, then what the Charlie Hebdo attackers did has not ended. The feminist reaction to the Charlie Hebdo attackers is to come close to defending them such as with this article from Feministing or in the case of Jonathan McIntosh (Anita Sarkeesian’s “partner” as Feminist Frequency and likely boyfriend):

McIntosh actually thinks that what the Charlie Hebdo attackers did wasn’t that bad because they were “marginalized”. Feminists pretend that Elliot Rodger is a demon and a terrorist while supporting actual terrorists. Why do feminists think Elliot Rodger was evil while the Charlie Hebdo attackers are misunderstood? It comes down to one thing. Elliot Rodger murdered (pretty white) women so they consider him to be a misogynist despite the fact that he murdered more men than women. Feminists considered some of the work that Charlie Hebdo published to be misogynist. It all comes down to the fact that feminists consider violence to be legitimate against anyone they consider to be a “misogynist”. That is why they treat Elliot Rodger and the Charlie Hebdo attackers so differently. That’s it.

John McLaughlin is a journalist and political commentator who hosts the weekly show, The McLaughlin Group, a show discussing the weeks political issues. At the end of every year The McLaughlin Group does a recap of the past year where each member of the group discusses various categories of things like what they think the most defining political moment of the last year was or who the most charismatic politician of the last was. For the “Most Boring” category of this years recap, McLaughlin said that the most boring thing was the Democrats invoking of the “war on women”. He said that people were tuning out and ignoring it.

I have been reading more articles about the Satya Nadella situation for an article I’m going to write about Maria Klawe. I have noticed a related issue that is important, the level of hate against Indian-American men in the comments of any article written in the last several days about Satya Nadella.

He is from India. Do you know how men treat women in India. They beat them!!!

He is from India. Men in India treat women like dirt. He thought that he was going to get cheers from all the men for trying to institute the Indian culture and their hatred for women, here. It is not his fault because it is in his blood to be that way.

Is this the work of trolls? No, because it is too widespread. Just look at the comments of any article with comments written in the last several days about Satya Nadella and you will find plenty of comments like those above. In particular, there’s an obsession with the idea that Indian men are all busy beating Indian women. In fact, accusations that Indian men are woman beaters aren’t limited to anonymous internet comments. People are willing to accuse Indian men of being woman beaters in articles where the authors use their real names such as this one.

Why are there such attacks on Indian & Indian-American men? Men of Indian descent are common in the tech industry and are successful not just as rank and file employees, but as executives and startup founders as well. They prove that the tech industry does not discriminate against women and minorities. Also, for practical reasons it’s not enough to just attack white men in the tech industry. Indian (and Asian) men are numerous enough in the tech industry that even if the white men were taken out, Indian and Asian men would fill the gap, not women and definitely not white women.

That is what “diversity in tech” is really all about. It’s get rid of the White, Indian, & Asian men followed by getting rid of the rest of the men when convenient plus foreign born women need not apply. If you look at the demographics of who is attacking the tech industry, they are primarily white and barring that non-foreign born minorities.

Indian men in tech committed an unforgivable sin in the eyes of feminists by being successful in the tech industry. And they did while coming from a poor third world country where they were worse off than any American women.

It’s been several days since Satya Nadella answered a question about how women should ask for raises, yet I can find that people are still talking about it. Before, going any further let’s take a look at what he actually said:

You know, the thing that perhaps most influenced me in terms of how you look at the journey or a career – there was this guy whose name was Mike Naples he was the president of Microsoft when I joined and he had this saying where he would say: ‘look, all HR systems are long term efficient, short term inefficient’, and I thought that phrase just captured it.

Which is it’s not really about asking for the raise its knowing and having faith that the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along. And that, I think might be one of the additional superpowers that quite frankly women who don’t ask for a raise have because that’s good karma, it’ll come back. Because somebody is gonna know that’s the kind of person that I wanna trust, that’s the kind of person that I wanna really give more responsibility to.

And in the long term efficiency things catch up. And I wonder, and I’m not saying that that’s the only approach, I wonder whether taking the long term helps solve for what might be perceived as this uncomfortable thing of ‘hey am I getting paid right, am I getting rewarded right’, because reality is your best work is not followed with your best reward. Your best work then has impact, people recognise it and then you get the rewards and so you have to somehow think that through I think.

The non-italicized paragraphs are the parts that most articles on the web and elsewhere never include when talking about this.

While it’s debatable whether this is good advice for anyone, male or female, looking at the whole quote makes it clear that Satya Nadella believes in meritocracy almost to a fault. He has also benefited from the meritocracy in the tech industry. If the tech industry excluded women and minorities like feminists and other leftists say, then Satya Nadella would never have been CEO of Microsoft. That’s why he’s still getting attacked days after saying this. Nadella, along with all of the other men of South Asian and East Asian descent in the tech industry, prove that women and minorities aren’t being discriminated against by the tech industry simply by existing.

Nadella reacted to the uproar about what he said by backpedaling. He should have done the opposite because it’s clear that most anyone attacking him is intentionally misquoting him. They’re leaving out the first and third paragraphs of what he said. Nadella should have noticed this and realized that no matter how much he goes into mangina mode, he will always be attacked as an evil tech industry CEO oppressing women. In many ways, the attacks against Nadella will be worse than if he was white because his existence is a threat to the feminist narrative about women being oppressed. Even if Nadella becomes the biggest mangina ever, it will not help him. His existence is a threat to the feminist narrative because he shows that women aren’t being kept out of the tech industry.

Nadella isn’t the only man in the tech industry who could be in this situation. Any man of South Asian or East Asian descent working in the tech industry could easily get attacked in the same way. (The only difference is that Nadella is more visible because he’s the CEO of Microsoft.) In fact, it is easy to find articles attacking all men of South Asian and East Asian descent working in the tech industry as being mustache twirling racists and misogynists. Here is one such example. (It even includes garbage like Indian Americans all hate black people and 40% of Indian American men beat their wives.) When you read the article at that link, the implication becomes clear. If men of South Asian and East Asian descent don’t get with the feminist agenda, they will be attacked as much as white men are, if not more. It’s a variant on a kafka trap to trick South Asian and East Asian men into becoming manginas by making them think there is a way out of being attacked like white men. Like with Satya Nadella, the attacks will not stop by becoming a mangina, since the problem for feminists is that South Asian and East Asian men are in the tech industry.

What Satya Nadella should have done is realized that South Asian and East Asian men working in the tech industry are under attack and done something like start a hashtag called, #NotYour5thColumn (similar to how women and non-white men started #NotYourShield to support #GamerGate). Feminists claim to include minority men, but in reality they don’t care about them. There is no way for non-white men to placate feminists. Satya Nadella is going to learn this the hard way just like many (former) manginas who are white did.

All men in tech industry are under attack by feminists. Just because feminists went after white men first and now East Asian and South Asian men doesn’t mean they aren’t coming for you. As the last several days with Satya Nadella have shown us, either we stand together or make it easier for feminists to destroy us separately.

Penn Jillette, one of the two members of the magician duo, Penn & Teller, is an example of a public figure who has recieved death threats. He has received many death threats from Christians and others due to his outspoken atheism. Jillette has actually had to contact the police over some of the threats he has recieved, and there is no question that he has actually had to contact the police unlike with Sarkeesian. Another importance difference between Sarkeesian and Jillette is how Jillette has recieved his death threats. Unlike Sarkeesian who gets her alleged death threats via Twitter and the rest of the internet, Jillette has received death threats by postal mail. Based on that alone, Jillette has much more reason to worry about bodily harm than Sarkessian ever would. It takes much more effort to write and mail a letter than type up a tweet so Jillette has much more to worry about than Sarkeesian ever would. (This also shows that women don’t have it worse when it comes to death threats online or off line.)

None of this can be used to determine whether Sarkeesian actually received any death threats. However, looking at how a public figure like Penn Jillette handles death threats shows that a public or semi-public figure typically handles death threats in a manner contrary to how Sarkeesian handled her alleged death threats. As a result there is a high likelihood that Sarkeesian’s alleged death threats are fake. It also reveals a lot about the character of Sarkessian and her supporters.

Dear Women: come to Microsoft, to IBM, to Cisco, to Apple or even to Google/Facebook. We are “dinosaurs” (which means that we have been around for many years) and we actually have an HR department and diversity policies. The older ones among us (Microsoft, IBM, Cisco) are not liked by the macho and libertarian TechCrunch crowd – just like older people are hated by the “cool” young ones.

It’s the same with this comment:

Now, my daughter’s attitude is that she wouldn’t be caught dead applying to jobs with hi tech companies in Silicon Valley. She is repelled by what she hears about the corporate culture – and her impression that it’s filled with people like her classmates. Instead, she wants to work for governmental agencies or companies that she feels are run by “grown ups” such as IBM. This attitude is becoming widespread among female CS majors. I think it’s pretty sad that the best and brightest young women in the CS field are writing off big segments of the tech world as potential employers. These companies better act and act quickly.

If women were so vital for success tech startups would be failing left and right, but that isn’t happening. Instead startups are providing men in the tech industry an escape hatch from working at large corporations and the government. On top of that startups have made lots of men rich outside of the control of women and the feminine imperative. Men who work at startups are effectively GTOW with respect to employment. Their productivity is benefiting themselves and not women working in useless jobs like HR and diversity officers.

The reason why we see this article attacking startups and Obamacare attempting to make it harder to form startups is because it is in women’s interests to see men forced to work in large corporations and the government. Men are not serving the feminine imperative when they work at a startup. I also suspect there’s a fear that startups will spread beyond the tech industry. If other industries have a startup ecosystem, even more me will be able to keep their productivity for themselves. Startups aren’t just a threat to the feminine imperative in the tech industry. They are a threat to the feminine imperative in every industry.

This year there is an election for governor in the state of Virginia. The two main candidates are Terry McAuliffe, the Democrat, and Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican. Terry McAuliffe is known for being a major Democratic party fundraiser and has a long history of questionable business dealings. McAuliffe has no real platform so his campaign has resorted to using the mythical “war on women” to attack Cuccinelli with most of his attacks focused on abortion and birth control.

Invoking the nonexistent “war on women” is par for the course for Democrats. What is unique about McAuliffe campaign’s use of this tactic is that they are trying to connect Cuccinelli to fathers’ rights groups. Here is an example:

While it’s clear that Terry McAuliffe hates fathers to the point of not caring about being a father to his own kids, the views of his supporters on fathers are worse. The graphic shown above was posted to facebook, and here is the response from one of McAuliffe’s supporters:

I do not know him personally but any man who would delve into a womans issue such as child bearing and raising children is obviously insane.

This woman is saying that any man who wants to be a father to their children is insane. She believes that fatherhood should not exist (although it’s safe to assume that she doesn’t want to give up the gravy train of men paying child support).

To cover up McAuliffe’s deficiencies as a candidate for governor, his campaign has run the most anti-father (and anti-male) campaign in American history. Polls currently show that McAuliffe has a very comfortable lead over Cuccinelli. While there are other issues involved such as the recent government shutdown, this shows that McAuliffe’s anti-father bigotry resonates with a section of the electorate. The end result of McAuliffe getting elected will be than even more young men will decide that it’s too dangerous to become a father and to go their own way.

Men’s Rights Edmonton in Canada has done some great work for mens (human) rights recently. The Vancouver Police Department came up with these anti-male posters that accuse all men of wanting to sexually assault women with the tag line, “Don’t Be That Guy”. MR-E turned the tables on them with a series of posters called, “Don’t Be That Girl” which were posted all over Edmonton, Canada. Here’s an example:

Needless to say, MR-E’s campaign has generated some reactions such as this woman who wants you report the posters to the government:

My original feminism was about equality: women were equal to men and all we needed was the laws to force misogynists to stop being misogynists. The older I get, the more I believe that ‘equality’ is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the true liberation of women. Equality before the law means nothing when violence is endemic;

What is the “true liberation of women”? It’s nothing more than female supremacism. Since Pennington is against both equality between men and women and presumably women having a lesser status than men (because women wouldn’t be “liberated” in this case), the only option left is that she supports female supremacism. This is confirmed by her attack on equality before the law and elsewhere in Pennington’s article:

Feminism requires more than equality. It requires liberation. It requires the liberation of ALL women from male violence.

Governments have been waging a war on crime ever since governments have been around despite knowing that the complete elimination of crime (or violence) is impossible. The only way to even try to do such a thing is a police state the likes of which wasn’t even seen in the Soviet Union. Neither socialism nor the police state of the Soviet Union were totalitarian enough and female supremacist enough for her because even socialists still pay lip service to equality and the idea that both men and women have human rights:

Until two years ago, I would have still identified as a socialist-feminist, although my awareness of the structural oppression of women was growing. The unrelenting misogyny and rape apologism on the left made me reconsider my political stance as did the creation of the Feminist/Women’s Rights board on Mumsnet. The more I read on Mumsnet, the more radical my feminism became. I started reading Andrea Dworkin, Natasha Walters, Kate Millett, Susan Faludi, Susan Maushart, Ariel Levy, Gail Dines, Germaine Greer, and Audre Lorde. I learned about cultural femicide and I started reading only fiction books written by women: Isabel Allende, Alice Walker, Maya Angelou, Kate Mosse, Margaret Atwood, Kris Radish, Barbara Kingsolver, and Andrea Levy amongst many others. I started reading about women’s lives and the power of real sisterhood.

My feminism, both the definition and activism, has changed dramatically over the past 18 years. Now, I self-define as an anti-capitalist, pro-radical feminist as I believe that the source of women’s oppression is male violence which is perpetuated by the structures of our capitalist economy. The Patriarchy may predate capitalism but we cannot destroy it without destroying capitalism too. I don’t always feel a ‘real feminist’ or a ‘good enough’ feminist. All I know is that I am a feminist who truly believes that women have the power to liberate all women from male violence; that feminism is fundamentally about the power of sisterhood.

My feminist activism involves privileging women’s voices over men’s voices. I now only read books written by women. I try to get my main news from women’s news sites and women journalists like Soraya Chemaly, Samira Ahmed, Bidisha, Helen Lewis, Bim Adewunmi, and Sarah Smith. I follow only women journalists on Twitter and Facebook. I support organisations which are placing women’s experiences at the centre of public debate: Women Under Siege, The Everyday Sexism Project, and The Women’s Room UK.

Pennington says here that she is privileging women over men. It’s not just about what Pennington reads or her actvism. Throughout her article, Pennington doesn’t just attack the a general vague idea of “equality”, she attacks very specific ideas of equality, namely equality before the law. Being against equality before the law means that Pennington wants to elevate women above men legally which is the most important aspect of female supremacism. There can be no doubt here that Pennington is a female supremacist and that feminism is about female supremacism.

One thing I have noticed about many of the articles that have been written about the whole Adria Richards situation is that they either explicitly or implicitly try to communicate that there is some sort of misogynist internet troll army or MRA internet troll army. (This is a good example, and so is this.)

The reality is that this is a myth. The truth is the internet trolls that went after Adria Richards have no connection to the MRM (or the tech industry) and can’t seriously be called anti-feminist much less misogynist. The trolls came from places like 4chan and amorphous groups like Anonymous. Anyone can claim affiliation with 4chan or Anonymous, so every and any point of view will be represented by those groups (if they are even cohesive enough to be called groups). 4chan and Anonymous will go after anyone that any of its “members” feels like going after. For example, 4chan recently spread fake rumors that Justin Bieber raped a 13 year old girl so as you can see internet trolls go after anyone, not just women. Anonymous has gone after anti-feminists so no one can honestly say that Anonymous is opposed to feminism.

It’s important to be aware of this information because feminists will use internet trolls as an example of an army of misogynists abusing women over the internet ignoring that internet trolls do the same thing to everybody. We need to counter this myth that internet trolls are some sort of adjunct army of the MRM (or misogyny in general) whenever it comes up.

What video game company would create such an absurd and money losing video game (that also promotes pseudoscience)? None of them because video game companies aren’t that stupid. This video game was created by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. Your tax dollars went to funding this useless video game.

I would be very surprised if this video game even gets released today. Even if it does, they won’t be able to give this game away even if they payed people to play it. This is guaranteed to be a flop.